Nagpur court acquits vlogger Faris Qadri in 2024 Tehsil police station case, citing doubt

A Nagpur court has acquitted social media video blogger Faris Qadri of all charges linked to an alleged incident at Tehsil police station in June 2024. His name is recorded in the judgment as Faris Nizamuddin Qadri. The court gave him the benefit of the doubt and said the prosecution could not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Additional Sessions Judge-20 Pankaj S. Pande delivered the verdict on October 29, 2026, in Sessions Case No. 695/2025.

The case began with Crime No. 355/2024 registered at Tehsil police station. It related to an alleged incident in the early hours of June 8, 2024. Qadri was charged under Sections 353, 186, 504 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The charges included use of criminal force against a public servant, obstructing public servants in their work, intentional insult and damage to public property.

According to the prosecution, Qadri went to Tehsil police station with a friend. It alleged that he interfered with the process of registering a complaint, snatched papers and abused policemen. The prosecution also alleged that after being taken to another room, he threw a chair at a wall-mounted television screen and a computer, damaging government property. The equipment was estimated to be worth about Rs 1.20 lakh.

During the trial the prosecution produced seven witnesses, while one witness deposed for the defence. After examining the oral and documentary evidence, the court concluded that the charges were not proved by reliable evidence.

On the charge of assault or criminal force against a public servant, the court said the prosecution could not prove that Qadri did anything of the kind against the complainant. The allegation of snatching papers also appeared uncertain to the court. It further noted that the police station's CCTV footage was never produced at the trial, although it could have played an important role in independently establishing what actually happened inside the station.

On the charge under Section 186 of the IPC, the court said that taking cognisance on the basis of a police report is barred under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Besides this legal hurdle, the prosecution also failed to prove that Qadri had actually obstructed public servants in the course of their duty. On the charge of intentional insult under Section 504, the court found that it was not proved what abusive words the accused had used. The circumstances showing that the insult could have provoked a breach of the public peace were not proved either.

The damage to government property was among the weakest links in the prosecution's case. It claimed that the television screen and computer at the police station were damaged, but neither device was seized during the investigation or produced in court. The explanation that the devices stayed in working order and continued to be used does not establish the actual nature or extent of the damage. Records proving the alleged financial loss were also not produced.

The photographs submitted by the prosecution were excluded from consideration because they were not properly proved. The photographer did not testify, and the certificate required for electronic evidence was not filed. The person who issued the repair quotation was not examined in court either. The court said the Rs 1.20 lakh mentioned in the FIR is the stated value of the equipment, not actual loss proved at the trial. A figure of Rs 38,500 cited in connection with the damage was also not supported by sufficient evidence.

The prosecution suffered another setback when the panch witness to the spot inspection did not support its case. The witness denied that a panchnama was prepared at the scene in his presence. This weakened the evidence of damage to public property further.

After considering the evidence and legal arguments, the court acquitted Qadri of all charges. The judgment made clear that the acquittal rests on lack of evidence and legal flaws in the prosecution's case. It is not a finding that the original allegations were false or vexatious.

The court cancelled Qadri's existing bail bonds and discharged the surety. However, under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), he was directed to furnish a bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety, to appear before a higher court for six months if required. Advocate Mir Nagman Ali appeared for Qadri during the proceedings. With the verdict, the trial in the 2024 Tehsil police station case has ended.